Sensible Sentencing Trust spokeswoman Ruth Money said public confidence in the judiciary could be maintained only "through transparency and understanding".

"Hence this site serves to educate the public by providing summaries of cases we have been able to access."

The New Zealand Bar Association has labelled the website "ill-considered, totally unnecessary and likely to give rise to illegality as contempt of court".

President Stephen Mills, QC, likened the website to "talkback radio".

"[It's] likely to attract debate and comment of similar quality but with the added disadvantage (or advantage, depending upon one's perspective) of being permanently available and accessible in the blogosphere."

He said judges had "an extremely difficult job".

"The daily work of a judge in court is done publicly and is scrutinised by the news media. If the conduct of a judge is questioned, that conduct can be the subject of complaint to the judicial conduct commissioner."

University of Canterbury Dean of Law Dr Chris Gallavin said the website was "unseemly" but that it was not surprising, coming from the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

"They're often criticised for their decisions but what people don't realise is that they are working within a legal framework. Often the criticism should be laid at the feet of the legislation, not that of individual judges," he said.

Fellow law professor Ursula Cheer said the website could possibly be defamatory or in contempt of court.

"For defamation if the website gets something wrong they could be in trouble. Also, if they attack the same judge over and over again it might be seen as ill will and not a genuine opinion," she said.

"It is rare to have a contempt of court because of freedom of expression, but again if it's untrue or becomes a malicious vendetta then it could be entering the arena of contempt."

Cheer said suggesting judges were wrong was "problematic".

"They are judging on behalf of the public.

"There is no right answer, they have to weigh things up and make a decision."